MK Ultra was a code name declassified in the 1970’s Church Committee and other lawsuits brought against the government where the public was informed that thousands of people, patients from hospitals, mental health patients, prisoners in the… justice system, and even public citizens were selected for testing without their consent. Testing was conducted int he 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Some claim they still go on today and provide evidence. The testing includes torture, drugs and exotic hypnosis experiments in an effort to explore the mind, propaganda and other related patterns. One sub department of the operation included a group of lunatic scientists who were looking to create an assassins program, to see if it was possible to kidnap someone, say an enemy in a country, conduct hypnosis and other techniques learned in Mk Ultra, and send them back to the country with a plan to assassinate their leaders. That plan is what scares people most. MK Ultra was carried out by the CIA illegally and in the 1970s, hundreds of patients sued the federal government for damages, and the government settled and paid millions of dollars.

Now here is the really trippy, scary info. Some of these patients where MK Ultra was used include Ted Kazinsky (the unabpmber), mark David Chapman (the man who shot Lennon), Sirhan Sirhan (the man who shot Bobby Kennedy) and even Lee Harvey Oswald is rumored to have attended a base in japan before heading to Russia where MK Ultra experiments were taking place. David Ferrie, Oswalds boss for a long period of time, is said to have been an MK Ultra specialist and specialized in hypnosis and believe it or not, sexual molestation to mess with his patients heads. David Ferrie was a convicted child predator who left the Catholic Church to train Black Operations hitmen for the invasion of Cuba. David Ferrie taught the Louisiana Civial Air Patrol where both Lee Harvey Oswald and Barry Seal joined as 15 year old children. Barry Seal became the primary operative in Iran-Contra who ran drugs for the CIA and was an active contract hitman, Oswlad was accused of killing John F Kennedy. David Ferrie was murdered, made to look like a suicide, the night before his testimony in a trial Jim Garrison brought against the CIA where he accused Ferrie and others of using Oswald as a patsy…

Here are some of the videos of the testimony from MK Ultra survivors during court cases against the government:

Project MK-ULTRA, or MKULTRA, was the code name for a covert CIA mind-control and chemical interrogation research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. The program began in the early 1950s, continuing at least through the late 1960s, and it used United States citizens as its test subjects. The published evidence indicates that Project MK-ULTRA involved the surreptitious use of many types of drugs, as well as other methods, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain function.

Project MK-ULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms’ destruction order.

Although the CIA insists that MK-ULTRA-type experiments have been abandoned, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various interviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a “cover story.”

On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said:

“The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an ‘extensive testing and experimentation’ program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens “at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.” Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to ‘unwitting subjects in social situations.’ At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.”

Project ARTICHOKE was a CIA project that researched interrogation methods and arose from Project BLUEBIRD on August 20, 1951, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. A memorandum by Richard Helms to CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles indicated Artichoke became Project MKULTRA on April 13, 1953.

The project studied hypnosis, forced morphine addiction (and subsequent forced withdrawal), and the use of other chemicals, among other methods, to produce amnesia and other vulnerable states in subjects.

Artichoke was an offensive program of mind control that gathered together the intelligence divisions of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and FBI. In addition, the scope of the project was outlined in a memo dated January 1952 that stated, “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?”

Operation LAC (Large Area Coverage), was a U.S. Army Chemical Corps operation which dispersed microscopic zinc cadmium sulfide (ZnCdS) particles over much of the United States. The purpose was to determine the dispersion and geographic range of biological or chemical agents.

3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (QNB, BZ, EA-2277), IUPAC name 1-azabicyclo[2.2.2]Oct-3-yl α-hydroxy-α-phenylbenzeneacetate, is an odorless military incapacitating agent. Its NATO code is BZ. The Iraqi incapacitating agent Agent 15 is believed either to be the same as or similar to BZ.

BZ is a glycolate anticholinergic compound related to atropine, scopolamine, hyoscyamine, and other deliriants. Dispersal would be as an aerosolized solid (primarily for inhalation) or as agent dissolved in one or more solvents for ingestion or percutaneous absorption.

Acting as a competitive inhibitor of acetylcholine at postsynaptic and postjunctional muscarinic receptor sites in smooth muscle, exocrine glands, autonomic ganglia, and the brain, BZ decreases the effective concentration of acetylcholine seen by receptors at these sites. Thus, BZ causes PNS effects that in general are the opposite of those seen in nerve agent poisoning. CNS effects include stupor, confusion, and confabulation with concrete and panoramic illusions and hallucinations, and with regression to automatic “phantom” behaviors such as plucking and disrobing.

Physostigmine, which increases the concentration of acetylcholine in synapses and in neuromuscular and neuroglandular junctions, is a specific antidote.

Posted Originally on Opinion Maker on 29. Dec, 2011 by Nadir Mir
US – NATO attack on Pakistan

By Brig Nadir Mir

US – NATO attacked a non NATO Ally Pakistan!

The attack was unprovoked, wanton, cowardly and ruthless. It was open aggression and violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. US – NATO aggression was condemned or Pakistan received support and sympathy from China, Russia, Iran, OIC (Saudi Arabia) – Turkey. Even UK expressed regrets; France supports an inquiry into the issue. Germany was obviously disappointed by Pakistan’s cancellation of participation at Bonn Conference

US filled with hubris even refused to apologize, while Delhi was gloating over the death of Pakistani Soldiers and its predicament. The Pakistani Nation is livid with rage and united to defend Pakistan. The American sanctioned attack (no other power on the planet can dare to attack Pakistan at its own) is radicalizing Pakistan. The beleaguered (mini minority) corrupt and treacherous elite in Pakistan are finding excuses to explain American aggression.

The time has come to end the Geopolitics of Confusion!

Firstly why was this aggression launched?

A long list of answers can be compiled, some are presented here:

A strategy of deflection to keep away from the ‘Memo’.
Gunship raid, attack (live) rehearsal – against Pakistan’s nuclear sites. (Helicopters at night used even earlier for ‘snatch operations’ like the Abbotabad Raid).
Daily Beast article which claims this as ‘Obama’s Foreign Policy Doctrine’ and terms it as ‘Off Shore Balancing’ (with money and bravado in short supply, avoid land battle. Use of heliborne/drone/air power for foreign policy ends of USA).
Condition Pakistan to stay prostrate during expected ‘war against Iran’ by Israel / US (urgency of expected strike on Persia)
Intimidate Pakistan before Bonn Conference. (Absurd but irrational Globalists can do anything)
Pakistan’s (offensive) containment. Degrade, disgrace Pakistan Army and drive a wedge in the Pakistani Nation. (The opposite effects have been achieved. The Pakistani Nation stands united and supports the Army vehemently)

Secondly who is with and against Pakistan?

With Pakistan stand its brave plus patriotic Armed Forces, and the nationalistically motivated people of Pakistan. The soldiers and masses stand together against foreign threats. Externally to varying – degrees Pakistan is supported by China – Russia – Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia – OIC. Almost the entire region is against US sponsored wars, or longevity for its military presence. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are already in a state of war with USA. Most of the world respects Pakistan (Pakistan’s nomination to Security Council seat was testament). India is of course completely untrustworthy. It can always launch ‘Cold Start’ offensive on any pretext in harmony with US MILITARY STRIKE – against Pakistan. (In December a major Indian Army Exercise is underway in the deserts against Pakistan). Still the regional Geopolitics would have to be viewed by Delhi, more than Pakistan’s offer of MFN.

Russian support can prove a game changer for Pakistan. It would tilt the scales, Russia – China and not only China supporting Pakistan. Deterring USA to an extent, while inhibiting India from joining US for an attack on Pakistan. (Besides Pakistan’s conventional forces and nuclear deterrent – tactical weapons included, could keep India at bay)

The British even as America’s most Allied Ally are not openly clashing with Pakistan. (Both due to British Policy and British vulnerability at home. More so, the fate of the British Embassy in Tehran clearly indicates an Iranian – British clash). In fact Pakistan’s relations with the British, French and Germans (major NATO members) have been good. They could even be better if NATO withdraws from Afghanistan. (There would be little to have friction on). Pakistan – German friendship should improve further. Germany is the true and future leader of Europe and respected by Pakistanis.

Now the question who is against Pakistan?

A brutally candid answer is:

Firstly, Pakistan’s own corrupt, treacherous and incompetent elite, a mini minority which wants to keep robbing and exploiting the Pakistani Nation. They seek solace and work for foreign powers (USA – India). The treacherous elite would sell the Motherland for a song. They want to serve as slave overseers for a shackled Nation. Selling it to the first bidder. Yesterday it was USA alone but now it is USA – India. This is the Pakistan Corruption – Treachery Nexus, who are more loyal to Washington – Delhi than many Americans and Indians and of course Anti Pakistan. (After all in USA, Americans are challenging the system – Occupy Wall Street, LA etc or Anna Hazara ‘Anti corruption Drive’ in India)

Secondly the cabal of America’s Globalists, military – industrial complex, left over Neo cons who still want to conquer the world. (Despite being chastened in Iraq – Afghanistan). On the contrary, the good hearted, charity giving and amiable people of America many of whom are now questioning this perpetual war quest. They seek jobs and living at home rather than wars abroad! The White House and State Department are confused in the Geopolitical labyrinth of Afghanistan.

The war lovers of course love war. They want to continue the war in Afghanistan and start new ones in Iran – Pakistan! (Not divining that the combined Geopolitical space of Afghanistan – Pakistan – Iran – Iraq will prove a Giant Black hole (even for Uncle Sam).

Thirdly, Delhi the serpent, is always bidding its time to strike Pakistan. Still the complex and multi faceted (Delhi does not want to lose Tehran / Moscow affinity) regional Geopolitics weighs heavy on Indian minds . As does the fear of nuclear holocaust from a Pakistani response.

Veteran Indian Diplomat MK Bhadrakumar had predicted a ‘Persian Response’ by Pakistan for this attack, (asymmetrical plus Strategic Defiance). Simon Tisdall warning in ‘Pakistan has had enough’ had opinioned that an Iranian type Revolution in Pakistan could be one outcome in future.

‘A hot flash in the Cold War with Pakistan’ is how the Atlantic titled its article. The only people who still think in terms of an alliance in the Global War on terror are Pakistan’s dimwitted, thieving, treacherous elite! The rest of the world is quite clear on the real issues, which are:

Without these three pre requisites any Strategic Denuclearization Scenario remains fiction and outside the realm of feasibility. (Any attempt against Pakistan’s nuclear sites will have catastrophic consequences any way).

Strategic logic dictates that all three pre requisites (for denuclearization attempt) be denied to foreign forces.

· Afghan Bases Denied. (Complete pull out of all foreign forces from Afghanistan has to be Pakistan’s avowed policy)

Besides Pakistan’s brave soldiers, the Nation stands united. China, Russia and Iran at the very least seek Pakistan’s strategic autonomy from NATO. EU – NATO can be divided more so with Turkish support. British are cautious, French non hostile, Germans Peace Seeking. In America, the Afghan war has divided them, even as they unite for the war against Iran.

I never thought I would have to write this: but—incredibly—Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention — but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.

They may have supported this bill because—although it’s hard to believe—they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.

Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy — those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else — as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.

Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be ‘they’ who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains to power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons – and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the ‘other’ that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens — (confident because I knew there was no such place) — so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation’s own political ruling class. This makes sense — the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.

Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini’s former colleagues in Parliament — as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler’s Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the ‘other.’ Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin’s Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor.

Is this intimidation and arrest by the military a vestige of the past? Hardly. We forget in America that all over the world there are militarized societies in which shells of democracy are propped up — in which Parliament meets regularly and elections are held, but the generals are really in charge, just as the Egyptian military is proposing with upcoming elections and the Constitution itself. That is exactly what will take place if Congress gives the power of arrest and detention to the military: and in those societies if a given political leader does not please the generals, he or she is in physical danger or subjected to military arrest. Whom did John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, say he was directed to intimidate and threaten when he worked as a ‘jackal’, putting pressure on the leadership in authoritarian countries? Latin American parliamentarians who were in the position to decide the laws that affected the well-being of his corporate clients. Who is under house arrest by the military in Myanmar? The political leader of the opposition to the military junta. Malalai Joya is an Afghani parliamentarian who has run afoul of the military and has to sleep in a different venue every night — for her own safety. An on, and on, in police states — that is, countries with military detention of civilians — that America is about to join.

US Congress people and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide — and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass — sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.

FRANÇAIS 189 عربي 9 ESPAÑOL 146 ENGLISH 201 PORTUGUÊS 20 DEUTSCH 28 ITALIANO 57 فارسى 1 РУССКИЙ 10 POLSKI 1
Targeting of Christian Syrians and Black Libyans: The “Clash of Civilizations” is on the march
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
21 NOVEMBER 2011
Divide and conquer stratagems are back with a vengeance throughout the Arab world, fanning the flames of discontent and undermining national sovereignty. The stage is being set for a contrived “clash of civilizations,” closely following the 1982 plan of Israeli strategist Oded Yinon, for which any form of peaceful coexistence among the various ethnic and religious groups living in Arab countries spells disaster and must be stamped out. Nazemroaya analyses the process already underway.

“THE ART OF WAR”
Armed business in Libya
by Manlio Dinucci
ROME (ITALY) | 14 NOVEMBER 2011
The “new Libya” is a mirror for larks, with entrepreneurs scrambling for mega-deals. However, the current state of instability makes any construction project extremely risky. The oil and food supply sectors are the only ones that offer long-term guarantees. Provided of course that businessmen are protected … this is where the private military companies come in.

Bob Powell: ’We’ve been lied to by every media outlet in the world about Libya’
13 NOVEMBER 2011
Upon recently uncovering information that the “revolution” in Libya was anything but a popular uprising, Bob Powell, host and producer of “The Truth Is Viral” on Above Top Secret decided to share it with his audience in the latest episode of his show.
In an efficiently packaged presentation, he exposes the real reasons behind the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi without leaving any stone unturned, from the CIA trained and equipped al-Qaeda terrorists assisted by Qatari Army soldiers, to the (…)

NATO WAR CRIMES
Libyan humanitarian activist vs. NATO
13 NOVEMBER 2011
Setting a momentous precedent, 34-year old Khaled K. El-Hamedi filed a lawsuit against NATO after his entire family was killed in a bombing raid on 20 June 2011 at 2:30 a.m. While in Libya, Voltaire Network’s Thierry Meyssan reported on the “The Sorman massacre”, denouncing NATO’s strategy of deliberately targeting the family members of Libyan leaders, aided by undercover agents who marked the targets for the strikes. Khaled K. El-Hamedi brings us his personal testimony of the barbarism that destroyed his loved ones, his life and his entire country.

Allied forces deployed in Libya since mid-February
10 NOVEMBER 2011
According to Nathalie Guibert of Le Monde, the French and British military General Staff negotiated the division of Libyan waters between their respective submarines a month before NATO’s intervention, that is when the Benghazi disorders erupted.
The French daily further reported that four nuclear attack submarines (SNA) were deployed off the coast of Libya during Operation “Unified Protector”. One of them allegedly started running intelligence missions by end of February.
Such reports (…)

In 1978, Imam Sadr was indeed Muammar Gaddafi’s victim
10 NOVEMBER 2011
Muammar Gaddafi’s former personal aide, Ahmad Ramadan al-Asaibie, gave an interview to journalist Jenan Moussa, released by the UAE-based television channel Al-Aan on 8 November 2011.
In the 80’s, Colonel Ahmed Ben Ramadan had coordinated the pro-Libyan forces in Chad, before taking command of the Libyan Revolutionary Guard. In the 90s, he headed the “Guide”’s Intelligence Bureau.
He claims to have witnessed the arrival at Muammar Gaddafi’s Headquarters of Iman Mosa el Sadr and his two (…)

5 000 Qatari troops helped to colonize Libya
7 NOVEMBER 2011
Having long claimed that it participated in the fighting in Libya by only sending a few planes, Qatar admitted some ten days that it actually deployed hundreds of ground troops.
However, Voltaire Network has consistently reported a massive presence of Qatari ground forces (and to a lesser extent, Jordan). Qatar had built a small airport in southern Libya and used the one in Cyrenaica to transport its troops. It disembarked reinforcements in Tripoli when the capital was taken.
Moreover, (…)

General Bouchard acknowledges that NATO’s informants in Libya were journalists
3 NOVEMBER 2011
In a 31 October 2011 interview on Radio Canada, Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, who led Operation Unified Protector in Libya, revealed that an analysis unit was set up at NATO headquarters in Naples. It’s mission was to study and decipher what was happening on the ground, that is to say both the movements of the Libyan Army and those of the “rebels.”
To fortify the unit, several information networks were created. “The intelligence came from many sources, including the media who were on (…)

Al Qaeda takes possession of emblematic Benghazi Courthouse
3 NOVEMBER 2011
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former Justice Minister of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya who became chairman of the National Transitional Council, announced the rebels’ intention to turn Libya into an Islamic state and implement Sharia as the only law.
From the first month of NATO’s bombing campaign in Libya, Voltaire Network highlighted Al Qaeda’s role in the destabilization of the country to justify foreign military intervention.
According to journalist Elhelwa Sheriff, the Al Qaeda flag is (…)

NATO Secretary General statement on end of Libya mission
by Anders Fogh Rasmussen
BRUSSELS (BELGIUM) | 28 OCTOBER 2011
Today, we confirmed the decision taken by the North Atlantic Council a week ago. Our operation for Libya will end on October 31. Until then, together with our partners, we will continue to monitor the situation. And if needed, we will continue to respond to threats to civilians.
We have fully complied with the historic mandate of the United Nations to protect the people of Libya, to enforce the no-fly zone and the arms embargo. Operation Unified Protector is one of the most successful in (…)

Libya’s former UN ambassador fears for life in jail
27 OCTOBER 2011
Libyan ex-PM Abuzed Dorda has suffered broken legs and other injuries following what relatives claim was a murder attempt by guards. The Libyan, meanwhile, says his wounds were sustained during an escape bid.
Dorda’s son-in-law, Adel Khalifa, wrote to the UN Security Council’s Nigerian president, U. Joy Ogwu, according to a web report by Foreign Policy magazine, which has a copy of the email.
“Most of you may have known and dealt with Mr. Dorda during his tenure as Prime Minister of Libya,” (…)

Libya and Gaddafi: setting the record straight
26 OCTOBER 2011
The following video, by an anonymous author, has circulated virally on the internet. It presents irrefutable facts which paint an image of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime diametrically opposed to what has systematically been conveyed by the NATO-subservient media.
Eloquently entitled “Libya & Gaddafi: The Truth you are not supposed to know,” the enormous attention galvanized by this video is a sign of the mounting outrage as public opinion opens its eyes to the fabrications and lies foisted (…)

An African perspective: “Three reasons why Gaddafi has to die”
25 OCTOBER 2011
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi overthrew the repressive Libyan monarchy of King Idris in 1969, nationalised the oil and banking industry and with the profits oversaw Africa’s first communication satellite in 2007, free health care and education for the Libyan people. He was working towards the unification of Africa to create a single African trading bloc and a single African currency based on gold and dinar, along with a united African military force.
In the following video, taped before (…)

Gaddafi’s son: ‘We continue our resistance to full revenge. I am in Libya, alive and free’
23 OCTOBER 2011
The son and heir apparent of the late Colonel Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam, is still in Libya. He is free and will go on with resistance, he reportedly claimed in an address to supporters aired by Syria’s Arrai TV Channel, loyal to the Libyan ex-leader.
“We continue our resistance. I am in Libya, I am alive, free and intend to go to the very end and exact revenge,” Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency quotes Saif al-Islam as saying on the Syrian Channel on Saturday night.
Earlier contradictory reports (…)

Chávez: Gaddafi’s assassination will not be the end of Libyan resistance
23 OCTOBER 2011
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez condemned the killing of Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddafi as an “assassination” and “a disregard for human life”.
Chávez stated that Gaddafi would be remembered as “a fighter and a martyr” and opined that the conflict in Libya isn’t finished, because in the North African country “there is a people, a dignity, and the Yankee empire will not be able to dominate”.
“The most lamentable thing is that in its [the US] determination to master the world, and its European (…)

Clinton: “We came, we saw, he died!”
21 OCTOBER 2011
Paraphrasing Emperor Julius Caesar following his victory over Pharnaces II (“Veni, Vedi, Vici”, meaning “I came, I saw, I conquered.”), US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, chortling before CBS cameras, reacted to Muammar Gaddafi’s death and the end of the war on Libya by declaring “We came, we saw, he died!”

The lynching of Muammar Gaddafi
by Thierry Meyssan
BEIRUT (LEBANON) | 21 OCTOBER 2011
The death of Muammar al-Gaddafi was hailed with an explosion of joy in all the government palaces of Western countries, but not by the Libyan people. For Thierry Meyssan, this militarily useless murder was perpetrated by the Empire not only as an example, but also to deconstruct Libya’s tribal society.

Barack Obama on Announcement of Death of Libya’s Qadhafi
by Barack Obama
WASHINGTON D.C. (USA) | 20 OCTOBER 2011
Good afternoon, everybody. Today, the government of Libya announced the death of Muammar Qaddafi. This marks the end of a long and painful chapter for the people of Libya, who now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya.
For four decades, the Qaddafi regime ruled the Libyan people with an iron fist. Basic human rights were denied. Innocent civilians were detained, beaten and killed. And Libya’s wealth was squandered. The enormous potential of the (…)

Mali: Masses March in Support of Muammar Gaddafi
18 OCTOBER 2011
Mass demonstrations took place Friday in Mali against the European-American aggression on the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the leader of the Libyan revolution, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.
The protesters wore T-shirts and placards bearing the image of Colonel Gaddafi and chanted their readiness to die to save Libya. International brigades are being formed to stand up against the re-colonization of Africa.
The Jamahariya devoted part of its oil revenues to the development (…)

DOCUMENTARY BY JULIEN TEIL: “HUMANITARIAN WAR IN LIBYA : THERE IS NO EVIDENCE !”
Lybia: Human rights impostors used to spawn NATO’s fraudulent war
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
17 OCTOBER 2011
The names change but the methods remain the same. In Iraq the imperial war facilitator was Ahmed Chalabi. In Libya he goes by the name of Soliman Bouchuiguir, a shadowy human rights figure whose baseless allegations against Gaddafi were endorsed by the UN system and its affiliated human rights agencies without the slightest verification. Each one in his own way, Nazemroaya and Teil shed light on a failed system of international law and justice, which has made itself complicit in NATO’s war crimes in Libya.

Sirte martyred by NATO
15 OCTOBER 2011
The religious leaders of Sirte (Libya) have issued a fatwa authorizing the surviving residents to eat dogs and cats.
About one month ago some 3 000 soldiers and 80 000 civilians were trapped in the city, besieged by the forces of the National Transitional Council, overseen by officers of the International Coalition, and bombed by NATO.
Sirte no longer receives food supplies. Electricity and water are cut off. Hospitals stopped functioning. The city is in ruins.
Only 10 000-20 000 people (…)

Testimony by Lizzy Phelan: “The war on Libya is a war on Africa”
14 OCTOBER 2011
Back in the UK, after several months spent in Libya covering NATO war crimes and uncovering mainstream media lies, freelance journalist Lizzie Phelan continues to fight for truth and justice on behalf of the Libyan people. Her testimony below is a gripping example of her commitment.
Lizzie Phelan spent her last days in Libya – where she was reporting for PressTV – trapped in the Rixos Hotel, together with Thierry Meyssan, Mahdi Nazemroaya and two other members of the Voltaire Network (…)

Rebel Claims of Libya ‘Mass Graves’ Come Up Empty, Again
9 OCTOBER 2011
The NTC loses yet more credibility!
Since the ouster of Moammar Gadhafi, the rebel claims that the former dictator had killed some 50,000 people in the civil war began to be scrutinized, and suffered from a major lack of actual bodies.
The above photo, taken in March 2011, shows a row of empty graves but no victims.
The rebels acted quite vindicated yesterday, announcing some 900 bodies were found in a “mass grave.”
The problem is once again, it never happened. The rebel National (…)

Washington targeting China’s Achilles heel
by F. William Engdahl
FRANKFURT (GERMANY) | 7 OCTOBER 2011
While nervously watching China edging closer to becoming the predominant world power in the 21st century, Washington has also been keeping a keen eye on China’s heavy reliance on foreign oil to meet its growing energy needs. Engdahl analyses the oil trap that Washington has laid for China in Libya and through AFRICOM’s deployment across Africa.

Witch hunts in “free” Libya
by Lizzie Phelan
LONDON (UNITED KINGDOM) | 22 SEPTEMBER 2011
While NATO’s mandate enjoins it to protect civilians, the Alliance allows the forces of the Libyan National Transition Council to continue their abuses. After hunting down black Africans, the summary executions now extend to members of the Qadhadhfa tribe, that of the fallen Leader. Hundreds of thousands of African workers have already fled the country to escape death; the time has now come for certain Libyans to take the road to exile if they want to survive.

Walter Fauntroy, Feared Dead in Libya, Returns Home—Guess Who He Saw Doing the Killing
by Valencia Mohammed
WASHINGTON D.C. (USA) | 21 SEPTEMBER 2011
Former US Congressman Walter Fauntroy had traveled to Libya as a goodwill negotiator to try to stop the war. Trapped inside the Rixos Hotel together with the team of Voltaire Network journalists, he narrowly escaped death: we can testify that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had personally given the order to execute him. He owes his salvation to his faith and the intervention of a high-profile US military official. Back in the U.S., he gave an interview to “Afro” magazine.

Muammar Gaddafi: “Jamahiriya Government Can Never Be Defeated”
20 SEPTEMBER 2011
Summary of leader Muammar Gaddafi’s statement made in an audio message broadcast on Syria’s Arrai television on Tuesday, 20 September:
“All should be aware that the government of Libya is the Jamahiriya government, that the power belongs to the men and women of the Popular Conferences and the People’s Committees in Libya. This Government by the People will never fail nor fall. It embodies the millions of Libyans and for that reason it can’t fall. Anyone who says Qaddafi’s government has fallen (…)

Civilian deaths in Libya: who’s killing who?
17 SEPTEMBER 2011
In Libya, where NATO-backed NTC forces are attempting to wipe out the last remaining pro-Gaddafi strongholds, civilians are still being killed but normally-vocal countries backing a UN resolution to protect them have gone strangely quiet.
British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy paid a visit this week to survey their handiwork. The first heads of state to visit Tripoli since the city fell to rebel forces say their countries’ work in spearheading the NATO (…)

NATO’s War Crimes in Libya: Sanctions against defiance
by James Petras
NEW YORK (UNITED STATES) | 14 SEPTEMBER 2011
Faced with the deteriorating global situation and a wave of popular uprisings breaking away from Western hegemony, NATO powers counter-attacked in the most resolute manner. According to James Petras, the destruction of an independent and secular regime like Libya was meant to send the following unequivocal message “to whom it may concern”: any independent Third World regime can be overthrown; colonial puppet regimes can be forced upon a devastated people; colonialism is still thriving; and imperial rule is here again.

Special Declaration by ALBA-TCP Countries on Libya and Syria
13 SEPTEMBER 2011
Caracas, Venezuela
12 September 2011
The Foreign Affairs Ministers of the member states of ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America) gathered in Caracas on September 9 and condemned the NATO intervention in Libya and the illegal military aggression carried out under a UN Security Council resolution, saying that it opportunistically takes advantage of the internal political conflict in that country. This follows two prior ALBA statements on the issue this year: the (…)

History and Geography of KashmirThe State of Jammu and Kashmir is, as its name implies, made up of more than one territorial unit. The Vale, or Valley, of Kashmir and the region of Jammu are joined with Ladakh, Poonch, Gilgit, and Baltistan to form what was, before 1947, a single governmental unit under the rule of the Dogra Dynasty. Each of these regions is distinct from the others in many aspects, and this heterogeneity is important to bear in mind during study of the Kashmir question. However, Kashmiris have a strong culture of their own as well as a distinct language. In many ways, Kashmir’s regions are more like each other than anyone is like the rest of India.Srinagar, the summer capital of the State, is located in the centre of the Vale. This is the most populous region and the most significant agricultural centre, though it constitutes only 10% of the total land area of the state. The population of the Vale of Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim. In 1941, Muslims accounted for over 93% of the Vale’s population. Also living in the Vale, though highly outnumbered, is a population of Kashmiri Brahmin Hindus known as the Pandits. Many leaders of the Indian independence movement came from this community, among them Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

The next most important region is the province of Jammu where the winter capital is located. This region is the ancestral homeland of the Dogra dynasty. Jammu is predominantly Hindu and Sikh, though there are Muslims living there also. The tiny province of Poonch, in the southwest of the state, is a Muslim region which was added to the Dogras’ possessions in the middle of the 1930s. Ladakh is sparsely populated by Tibetan Buddhists. Finally, there are the mountainous northern provinces of Baltistan and Gilgit. The Baltis are primarily Shia Muslims as are the inhabitants of Gilgit; their cultural links with Kashmir are few.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir has a distinct culture all its own. Though there are strong regional cultural differences – Poonch, for example, is culturally closer to parts of Pakistan than to the Vale of Kashmir – it has been argued that Kashmiri Hindus have more in common with Kashmiri Muslims than with Hindus in the rest of India. And it is significant that Jammu and Kashmir has a history of relative freedom from communal riots compared to the rest of India. During times of strife, such as the disappearance of a hair – believed to be of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) – from the Hazratbal Shrine, Hindu-Muslim violence could flare to dangerous levels; however, such violence has generally been low in Kashmir. In fact, riots over the missing relic were more acute in some cities outside of Kashmir than in the Vale itself.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir is extremely mountainous. In Baltistan, K2, the world’s second tallest mountain, rises out of the Karakoram range to a height of over 28,000 feet. Ladakh includes part of the Tibetan high plateau. And the Pir Panjal range separates Poonch and Jammu from the Vale. Between these enormous ranges run the valleys which are the life-blood of the state. Until air travel, they were also the only routes of travel and communication. At the time of the Partition of British India, Kashmir’s only means of contact with the outside world lay on roads that ran through territory which would become Pakistan. As well, the rivers which originate in Jammu and Kashmir are essential for Pakistani agriculture.

Under the British Indian Empire, large portions of the subcontinent were not included in the area of direct British control. These Princely States, as they came to be known, were ruled by Indian Princes, many of whom were known as Maharajas. Technically independent of the British Raj, the Maharajas had agreed (under pressure, of course) to accept the Paramountcy of the British Crown. The State of Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by the Dogras, a Hindu dynasty, who were widely considered oppressive and corrupt. Sir Hari Singh was the Maharaja in 1947. His regime was oppressive enough to warrant intervention by the British at times, though they never went so far as to annex the territory. The British took interest in Singh’s rule because they considered Jammu and Kashmir to be a geopolitically significant territory. The Gilgit areas, which the British had leased to the Dogras, were considered to be a sensitive listening post from which to keep track of Russian and Chinese ambitions in Central Asia as well as an important frontier region in the event of Russian or Chinese attack.

The Transfer of Power and the Creation of the Kashmir Conflict

When the decision was made that British rule in India would come to an end, there were two dominant competing political philosophies struggling for independence on the subcontinent. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s philosophy of Two Nations divided on communal lines competed with the secular ideology of Jawaharlal Nehru. The British, in the end, chose to partition the subcontinent into two states according to the demographics of each province. All areas which were predominantly Muslim in population would join to form Pakistan while the non-Muslim areas would become India. In the Princely States, the Maharajas were given the choice to accede to the state of their choice or, in theory, to remain independent when Paramountcy lapsed with the British departure. For most Princely States, it was a foregone conclusion that they would join Pakistan or India, whichever their population dictated. Otherwise, they would have been surrounded by territory of the opposite state. In Jammu and Kashmir, however, this choice was not simple or straightforward: the Maharaja was a Hindu who ruled over a predominantly Muslim population. Because of Kashmir’s strategic location, it was feasible to join either state or even to become independent.

According to Alastair Lamb, it seems likely that Lord Mountbatten, the British Viceroy, engineered Partition in such a way that Jammu and Kashmir would go to India. At the very least, it seems evident that he tampered with the process sufficiently to leave that option wide open. By allocating the Gurdaspur district of the Punjab to India, even though it ought to have gone to Pakistan by the logic of Partition, the possibility of Jammu and Kashmir joining India was left open. Had Gurdaspur gone to Pakistan, there would have been no land-route connecting India to Kashmir. The evidence seems to suggest that Mountbatten meddled with the proceedings of the Radcliffe Commission, whose job it was to assign territories to either Pakistan or India. At best, his intention was to give Maharaja Sir Hari Singh a real choice of which Dominion to join. More likely is the assertion that he intended India rather than Pakistan to be the guardian of the Northern Frontier because he had more trust in India’s secular leadership.

Of course, Indian leaders saw themselves as the only capable guardians of the Frontier in the first place. Picturing themselves as a major South Asian power, and labouring under the assumption that Pakistan would crumble under its own internal contradictions within a few years and be rejoined with India, Nehru and the other leaders believed it was only right that Kashmir should accede to the Indian Union lest China or the Soviet Union be given a chance to snatch it and meddle in South Asian politics.

According to the logic of Partition and relevant precedent, however, Jammu and Kashmir ought to have gone to Pakistan. No Princely State, when all was said and done, remained independent, though a few tried. If we take it for granted, then, that Kashmir could not have become an independent state, it still seems that Pakistan has the better claim to the territory. The population of the state was overwhelmingly Muslim, economic, geographic, and cultural ties seemed to point towards union with Pakistan. A relevant precedent in this issue is the case of the accession of Junagadh to India. The Muslim Maharaja of Junagadh, believing that he might retain some power by joining Pakistan, opted to accede to Pakistan even though his population was overwhelmingly Hindu. India, in order to prevent the loss of this territory, imposed a plebiscite on the state by sending in the army. The population voted to accede to India. Thus, it seems that, for Jammu and Kashmir, the accession of the Maharaja is not final; it must be ratified by a plebiscite in cases where the Maharaja wishes to accede to the opposite Dominion than his population figures would imply. Pakistan has never accepted the validity of the Junagadh outcome, though it seems likely that they would have traded their claim to Junagadh in exchange for Jammu and Kashmir at the time of Partition.

Problems at Partition

During the uncertain times which surrounded Partition in 1947, a revolt against the rule of the Maharaja broke out in the town of Poonch. Starting in June 1947, two months before the Transfer of Power, a no-tax campaign began which evolved rapidly into a secessionist movement. As the Poonch troubles continued, Pakistan was faced with three options to deal with the Muslim uprising: to ignore what was going on and leave the Poonch Muslims to their fate, to assist the Hindu Maharaja in suppressing the rebellion, or to permit (be it overtly or covertly, officially or unofficially) some degree of material assistance to reach the rebels from or over Pakistani territory.

It seems that the course of action they eventually chose was very mild. The Pakistani leaders gave minuscule amounts of military material to the rebels (mainly because they had little to spare that would not attract the attention of the British officers still commanding the Pakistani Army). At the same time, they tried to persuade Maharaja Sir Hari Singh that it would be beneficial to accede to Pakistan. To this end, Pakistan imposed mild economic sanctions on Jammu and Kashmir. Singh did not take kindly to this, and on October 18, 1947 he threatened to ask India for military assistance to overcome the sanctions. From here, relations between the Maharaja and the state of Pakistan began to decline.

Sometime during September and early October, 1947, Maharaja Sir Hari Singh asked the Sikh Maharaja of Patiala state for help quelling the Poonch rebellion. He received assistance in the form of a battalion of infantry and a battery of mountain artillery supplied by the Sikh ruler from his State Armed Forces. Furthermore, the government of India took active steps, short of military reinforcement, to protect the Maharaja’s position in power and prepare for a possible military intervention. When the Maharaja began to open discussions with Sheikh Abdullah, a prominent Muslim leader jailed by the Maharaja’s regime, who was outspoken in his criticism of both the Maharaja and Pakistan, it became obvious that Jammu and Kashmir was about to accede to India. It is likely that at this point some Pakistani leaders began to genuinely worry about their own state’s safety in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. If Indian troops were sent to Poonch to quell the uprising, it was likely that the war could spill over the Jhelum river into Pakistani Punjab. Some leaders feared that India might use that occasion to destroy by force the Two Nation theory which they hated so much.

Events at this point become difficult to trace exactly because 50 years of acrimonious debate and propaganda have clouded the truth. According to Alastair Lamb, whose research is the most complete, it seems that the resistance commanders in Poonch had toyed with the idea of getting assistance from Pathan tribes in the North-West Frontier. Pathans had a reputation for being vicious fighters but not very disciplined, even in their home region. When they were on the warpath in remote fields, they had a reputation for brutality. More experienced Pakistani soldiers and politicians who were aware of what was brewing were seriously alarmed.[10]

But the Pathans had mobilized for battle and little could stop them from joining it. There seems to have been some acquiescence by Pakistani officials in the North-West Frontier Province, who let the Pathans cross the border, though it is not known how high up this was decided.

The main tribal forces probably arrived in Poonch during the first week of October, though some may have trickled in before. Contrary to the claims of some pro-Indian writers, it seems unlikely that Pakistan was involved in sending the Pathans to Kashmir in order to capture the territory without using the Pakistani army. The Pathans had the opportunity to take Srinagar before Indian help arrived, but looting and lack of reliable transport held them up. By the time they arrived in Srinagar, the rebels’ public image had been further tarnished by their actions and the city’s defences were reinforced. The Maharaja had requested aid from India in fear of the brutal Pathans. On 24 October, the Poonch rebels formally declared themselves to be the state of Azad (Free) Kashmir.

Faced with the prospect of a successful revolution, Maharaja Sir Hari Singh acceded to India on 27 October, 1947. Included in the Instrument of Accession was a special clause requiring a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the people once law and order had been reestablished. There is some question as to the chronology of the accession and of Indian intervention, including the fact that the Patiala brigade, officially troops of the Indian Union after that state’s accession, was in Jammu and Kashmir prior to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir. These questions of timing and the need for a plebiscite lead to significant doubts about India’s claim to the absolute legality of the Maharaja’s accession in 1947.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, seeing that Indian troops were moving to crush the independent Muslim Azad Kashmir, ordered its army to Kashmir too. The order was rejected, however, by the British commander of the Pakistani Army, General Gracey, who refused to sanction an inter-Dominion war. Talks between the leaders of India and Pakistan aimed at resolving the conflict proved fruitless. Neither side was willing to compromise. Nehru demanded that the Pathan tribesmen be withdrawn before a plebiscite on accession was held.

Meanwhile Jinnah insisted that he had no control over the tribesmen, but that he could threaten them with war by both Dominions if they did not leave. This was not good enough for Nehru, who did not believe Jinnah’s protestations of innocence. Jinnah insisted that Indian troops must be withdrawn before a plebiscite could have any meaning, but Nehru insisted that, since the Maharaja’s accession was legal and permanent, the Indians had a right to be in Jammu and Kashmir.

During this diplomacy, the Gilgit region threw off the Maharaja’s rule and declared itself a part of Pakistan. By May 1948, Indian forces began to press back the rebels and push towards the Poonch-West Punjab border. Seeing the Indian troops moving towards sovereign Pakistan, General Gracey allowed Pakistani regulars to officially assist the Azad Kashmir government, though at no stage during the first Kashmir war were Indian regulars out-numbered by Pakistani regulars. With the entry of Pakistani troops into the area, the first Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir officially began.

Kashmir at the End of the War

When the UN imposed a cease-fire on 1 January 1949, the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was divided roughly in half by the line known as the LoC (Line of Control) or LoAC (Line of Actual Control). Pakistan controlled the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan as well as Azad Kashmir, and a tiny portion of the Vale. India held Jammu, Ladakh, and the populous Vale, as well as a small portion of Poonch. We should note, at this point, that the northernmost section of the ceasefire line was never explicitly defined.

The negotiators did not extend the line because there had been no fighting in Kashmir’s northernmost reaches, but merely mentioned that the line should continue [from map coordinate NJ 9842] thence north to the glaciers.

The Karakoram mountain area, including the Siachen and Baltoro glaciers, is not only uninhabited, it is hazardous; this is why no fighting occurred there in 1948. Still, since 1984, India and Pakistan have engaged in an ongoing turf war over this area with soldiers at heights exceeding 17,200 ft. On the mountains and glaciers, more soldiers have died from the weather, terrain, and altitude than from fighting. This is part of the legacy of the conflict over Kashmir.

Since the end of the war in 1949, no attempts at mediation have succeeded in bringing the two sides together. In fact, the p/sitions taken by Nehru and Jinnah in 1947 are essentially the same positions each country puts forth today. There has never been a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris regarding accession. India has claimed that legislative elections were sufficient to serve as a plebiscite proving that Kashmiris wish to remain in India. This might be true except for some important considerations of the details in Kashmir. First, only one set of elections held in Jammu and Kashmir was even arguably fair: the elections of 1977. Other than the elections of 1977, there has been widespread election rigging and intimidation of voters. Even the 1977 election, it is argued by some, was accompanied by brutality and intimidation. One of the principle methods of insuring victory for Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference was the careful screening of which candidates were even allowed on the ballot. Few opposition parties made it. Thus, elections did not provide an opportunity for the Kashmiri populace to express its opinions; there were not enough options on the ballot between which to choose.

Second, participation in the Indian political system did not necessarily imply acceptance of it. Rather, it indicated that candidates understood the reality of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir and had a willingness to follow the rules in order to gain power. Sheikh Abdullah, for example, seemed, in many ways, to have been a puppet of New Delhi. But he always remained a thorn in their side by asserting that Kashmir deserved either independence or autonomy. Thus, even though Sheikh Abdullah accommodated himself extensively to Indian rule in Kashmir and was willing to contest (not to mention rig) elections, he never gave up the belief that Kashmiris retained the right to self-determination and had yet to express their preference in a suitable manner.

Political History, 1949 – 1971

While Nehru originally considered the accession of Kashmir to be provisional, pending a plebiscite, he was eventually converted to the view that the Maharaja’s accession was absolute. This does indicate, however, that in the early days of the dispute the Indian government unsure about the exact legal position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. At the same time, the government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was also legally undefined. The Maharaja, in October 1947, had created an emergency government headed by Sheikh Abdullah because this was what Nehru demanded in exchange for military assistance. (Nehru believed that his personal friend, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly committed to union with India. Abdullah’s supposed position was touted as the expression of the Kashmiri peoples’ will.) Thus, what political power was not in the hands of the Indian Army was held by a government which rested its legitimacy on the Maharaja’s will announced by proclamation.

This was to remain the real constitutional basis for National Conference rule for more than a decade (and, ironically enough, for many years after the Sheikh Abdullah regime had deposed the Maharaja and overthrown his Dogra Dynasty.)

The Indian government, meanwhile, accepted the Sheikh Abdullah government as legitimate. His regime, however, was far from democratic. Under Sheikh Abdullah, the State High Court was effectively shut down, senior appointments were doled out to his clients, trade concessions were sold for personal profit, and potential rivals to the Sheikh’s leadership were allowed to rot in jail. Sheikh Abdullah was also, to Nehru’s dismay, not quite a puppet of India. Though he said many different things at different times to different people, it was clear that his programme included one-party government in Jammu and Kashmir, autonomy, if not independence for the South Asian Switzerland, and secularism only in the form of Kashmiri nationalism.

When the Indian Constitution was finally drafted in January 1950, it contained special provisions relating to Jammu and Kashmir. While Article I declared the state an integral part of the Indian Union, Article 370 conferred upon it special status unlike any other state in the Union. The powers of the Indian Union Parliament in Jammu and Kashmir were limited to defence, external affairs, and communications. The framers of the constitution felt that, if they did not grant the minimal autonomy of Article 370, Sheikh Abdullah might declare that Kashmir wished to join Pakistan.

In 1951, elections were held for a Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in order to legitimate Sheikh Abdullah’s regime and draft a constitution for the State.

In theory its members had been freely elected by secret ballot in a manner hitherto unknown in the state; but somehow Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference Party and those sympathetic to it won all the seats for which they were candidates… Under 5% of the potential electorate [universal adult suffrage] actually voted… No less than seventy-three delegates were returned unopposed; and the whole process was boycotted by the only other tolerably organized party in the State, the Praja Parishad (associated with Jana Sangh in India) which represented the Hindus of Jammu (with a measure of Sikh support), after the nominations for all twenty-seven of its candidates had been rejected.

That was the type of regime that Sheikh Abdullah ran. The Constituent Assembly set about drafting a constitution which would insure that Jammu and Kashmir retained a large measure of autonomy and kept open the option of independence.

As mentioned above, the elections to the Constituent Assembly were touted by India as substitutes for a plebiscite. In response to this whitewashing, the Plebiscite Front was founded by Mirza Afzal Beg to call publicly for a United Nations supervised vote. Nehru ignored the call and did not react when leaders of the Plebiscite Front were detained by Sheikh Abdullah’s government.

In August 1953, Sheikh Abdullah was ousted and arrested for treason with the approval of New Delhi, where Indian leaders were afraid he was considering Kashmiri independence as a solution to the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, the new Prime Minister of the State, proceeded to declare that Jammu and Kashmir was a permanent part of the Indian Union. Sheikh Abdullah quickly came to agree with Mirza Afzal Beg that a plebiscite was essential to move towards justice and democracy in Jammu and Kashmir; and he began to express this opinion. Having been released from his prior detention, Sheikh Abdullah was arrested, in 1958, under the Preventative Detention Act and charged, along with Mirza Afzal Beg and others, with conspiracy.

The elections of 1957 and 1962 were carefully managed and opposition groups were unable to participate effectively. They were also, of course, held under the watchful eye of the Indian Army. Had these steps not been taken, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed would have lost. His level of support did not even approach that of Sheikh Abdullah. In December 1963, it was discovered that the holy hair of Mohammed (PBUH) had disappeared from the Hazratbal shrine. The hair reappeared later under mysterious circumstances.

The episode demonstrated to all who wished to see that the inhabitants of the Vale of Kashmir, generally docile and for many years evidently prepared to submit to whatever government the Indians and the National Conference might provide for them, could become extremely violent when their religion was perceived to be under attack. In other words, despite years of Sheikh Abdullah and his associates apparently preaching secularism, the Islamic religion remained the most powerful stimulus for political activity in the Vale of Kashmir.

Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed’s government was discredited during the incident because most ordinary Kashmiris believed the incident had been engineered by New Delhi to cement their hold on Jammu and Kashmir.

By the end of October 1964, the government of India, having given up on talks with Pakistan, moved to integrate Kashmir into the Indian Union by in effect abrogating Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed did not oppose these moves because he relied on New Delhi to stay in power. Kashmiri citizens and Pakistan, however, did not take kindly to the erosion of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy.

Eventually, Pakistan’s dissatisfaction combined with some border incidents led to the second Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir in 1965. During disturbances in Kashmir, calling for the release of Sheikh Abdullah from yet another period of imprisonment, Pakistan invaded, hoping to take advantage of the chaos. This war spilled over into attacks on the territories-proper of each side and proved to the world that India and Pakistan were truly enemies. The ceasefire and the Tashkent Declaration of 10 January 1966 brought the two sides back to their original positions prior to the crises. The war was, more or less, a wasteful mistake.

In 1971, the Indian government used the alleged existence and activities of a group of terrorists called Al Fatah in order to justify an attack on the Plebiscite Front and Sheikh Abdullah. By trumping up charges that the Plebiscite Front had aided Al Fatah, New Delhi was able to declare the Front an unlawful association and ban it from entering the 1971 elections. Also in 1971, the Fourteen Days War, which would end with the independence of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), broke out. The Simla Agreement of 2 July, 1972, which ended the war, involved a commitment by both sides to respect the territorial integrity of the other and, in Jammu and Kashmir, to respect the LoC of December 1971 and not try to alter it unilaterally. (This provision would eventually lead to the glacier war, mentioned above, which began in 1984 and continues until today. Because the LoC was undefined at the far north, unilateral change there was not exactly illegal.) After the Simla Agreement, the problem of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to be a territorial dispute between Pakistan and India; it became merely a dispute over the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination.

Kashmir in Turmoil – 1971 – the Present

In 1975, Indira Gandhi made a deal with Sheikh Abdullah to return him to power in exchange, she hoped, for his cooperation in permanently integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Union (with the reservations inherent in Article 370). The plan backfired, however, when Abdullah held elections in 1977 and won by a landslide. Following the election, Sheikh Abdullah began a policy of exceptionally dictatorial measures. He instituted press censorship, gave the police powers of detention for up to two years without appeal, ordered his Cabinet members to swear an oath of loyalty to him personally, and generally moved towards one-party rule in the State. In 1981, Sheikh Abdullah passed on the mantle of leadership to his son Dr. Farooq Abdullah.

Farooq Abdullah’s time in office did not last long. After winning the 1983 elections amidst widespread violence and hints of rigging, he was ousted by a carefully planned coup which effectively brought the end of Article 370’s implementation. On 31 July, 1984, Malhotra Jagmohan, the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, swore in a true puppet government under G.M. Shah. By 1986, however, the Shah administration had shown its inability to curb the rising violence in the State. Jagmohan announced the imposition of direct Governor’s rule and suspension of the Legislative Assembly on 7 March, 1986. In September, direct rule from New Delhi was imposed. Rajiv Gandhi attempted to salvage a semblance of democracy in Jammu and Kashmir by convincing Farooq Abdullah to run in the 1987 elections. Farooq Abdullah has admitted that the 1987 elections were as unfair as any others held in the history of the state. By January 1990 the violence was still rising. Jagmohan again declared Governor’s rule in the face of continuing violence and the outbreak of real revolt in the Vale. Since then, chaos and terror have reigned in Kashmir. 400,000 Indian Army troops and paramilitary forces now occupy the State fighting guerilla groups which demand independence or accession to Pakistan.

The number of militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir has climbed to over a dozen under the Indian crackdown. The oldest and largest of the groups is the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which was founded in 1964. The JKLF is the most secular and nationalist of the Kashmiri groups. Besides rejecting fundamentalist Islam as inimical to Kashmiri tradition, they call for independence because they fear that accession to Pakistan would mean trading one oppression for another. The young and radical wing of the JKLF has broken off into the Student Liberation Front. Also strong in the state, having gained training and experience in the Afghanistan jihad, are a number of Islamist or fundamentalist groups, most of which call for union with Pakistan. The largest Islamic group, and the most militant in its Islam, is the Hizb-ul Mujahidin, the armed wing of the outlawed Jamaat-i-Islami political party. Indian leaders believe that the majority of the Pakistani assistance to militants is directed towards the Hizb-ul Mujahidin. Militant leaders, however, claim that they receive little help from Pakistan. Besides these main groups, there are dozens of smaller groups which can survive on help from villagers. Kashmiri opinion is strongly in favour of the struggle for independence.

While insurgent groups have not been blameless,-they have kidnapped tourists and bombed public buildings-the Indian army has engaged in repeated atrocities on a massive scale in the process of its crackdown. The level of military misdeeds is so high that we can only conclude that it is government policy to terrorize the Kashmiris into accepting Indian rule. As a result, the possible paths towards peace in Kashmir seem, at this juncture, to point only in the direction of secession from India. It is for this reason that the All-Party Hurriyat Conference, a coalition of all the guerilla groups which was formed in 1993, manages to hold together. The groups have deep ideological differences, but they all can agree on secession from India.

The Indian State in Kashmir

We now come to the crucial point with which this chapter is concerned: India’s underlying reasons for occupying Jammu and Kashmir, its reasons for staying in the face of continued revolt, and the behaviour of the Indian state towards Kashmir. First, it must be noted that there is no clear data on Kashmiri opinions regarding India at the time of Partition. Today, after years of brutal Indian attempts to quell the uprising which began in 1989, it is possible to say, with some degree of certainty, the people are still very resolute and determined in one conviction: that Indian rule over them is illegitimate and unacceptable. Most Kashmiri [Muslims], however, want a sovereign state; they do not want to join Pakistan. During the early years of the conflict it was much more difficult to predict the opinions of the Kashmiris. For one thing, they were a largely uneducated rural people. Indian leaders, and other observers, assumed that they would blindly follow a few major figures, of whom Sheikh Abdullah was the strongest. Because of this assumption, the British and Indians were able to convince themselves that the state’s Muslim inhabitants would choose accession to India, despite the geographic, economic, cultural, and Islamic draw of Pakistan, if Sheikh Abdullah told them to do so. No one ever asked the people themselves. In point of fact, as the historical description above implies, the opinions of individual people were unimportant as far as state leaders in the conflict were concerned. The Kashmir dispute, in other words, started life as a contest over rights to a territory, not the struggle to establish the wishes of a people (emphasis in original).

So why this conflict over territory in the first place? Pakistan’s interest in Kashmir is obvious: the population is majority Muslim. M.A. Jinnah and the leadership of Pakistan believed that Muslims could never be full citizens in Hindu majority India. Thus, by the very logic which created Pakistan, Kashmir should have been an integral part of the Islamic country. When questions arose as to whether this would occur, it became the duty of Pakistan’s leaders to defend the rights of Kashmiris. To have allowed the Maharaja to accede to India unopposed would have been the ultimate betrayal of the cause for which Jinnah and the Muslim League had fought. The choice Kashmiris might make in a plebiscite was, basically, unimportant to Pakistani leaders. They believed, regardless of any false consciousness of Kashmiris, that accession to India would eventually lead to oppression.

I have identified four main reasons for the Indian involvement in Kashmir. Perhaps the most important, and the most insidious, is that, in the words of historian Paul Brass. At the top of [Indian leaders’] goals, the sine qua non for everything else was an abiding faith in and determination to preserve the national unity and integrity of the country against all potential internal and external threats to it. The very fact that this first priority, the centre of the dreams of the Congress nationalists, had to be sacrificed at Independence itself, with the partition of the country, reinforced the determination of the leaders never to make such a sacrifice again.

Thus, the very existence of Pakistan was, for Indian leaders, an affront to their struggle. To allow any more territory to fall to Pakistan than was absolutely necessary would be a betrayal of the ideals of the independence struggle. Accordingly, it was the policy of Nehru and the other Indian leaders to use force, if necessary, to crush any secessionist movement which showed signs of strength and not to make any concessions to regional, cultural, religious, or ethnic autonomy. They believed that to act otherwise would invite the rapid disintegration of the Indian Union and a resultant bloodbath. Allowing Kashmir, therefore, to join Pakistan after the Maharaja had signed the Instrument of Accession, would have been, in Nehru’s eyes, to begin the destruction of India. In fact, when the Indian constitution was drafted, the inclusion of Article 370 was a major embarrassment for New Delhi. Successive governments tried hard to eat away at Kashmir’s autonomy as it was enshrined in the constitution.

Nehru also had something to prove ideologically in Kashmir. By ruling over a state with a population 80% Muslim, India would be able to prove to the world that it was a secular nation-and disprove the Muslim League’s theory that there are two nations on the subcontinent that can not live together in peace. It turns out that India has, in fact, taken steps towards proving the Muslim League right instead. Perhaps if real democracy had been brought to Jammu and Kashmir early in the conflict, the Muslims might have been persuaded that they had a place within India. Instead, New Delhi supported Sheikh Abdullah’s autocratic practices, as well as acting autocratically itself. It is little wonder, therefore, that Kashmiris have been disillusioned by the Indian state.

India has strategic and economic interests in the State which it certainly takes into account. Kashmir’s beauty draws tourists and is source of income. Until the region became unsafe in 1989, Kashmir was a major attraction for foreign visitors. In fact, as the recent kidnappings have shown, tourists are still drawn to Kashmir despite the danger. More important than tourism is the strategic placement of the region. As I have mentioned above, India saw itself as the major regional power in South Asia and thus felt that it was only right for them to be the guardians of the Northern Frontier. However, with the invention of new technologies, including expanded air travel, and modern international politics, Kashmir’s strategic value is significantly lessened. Furthermore, India considers it a point of honour to oppose Pakistan’s meddling in Kashmir. Originally, however, there is no doubt that the interest in Kashmir was strongly influenced by strategic considerations.

Today, India justifies its occupation of Kashmir based on a purported but unverified Ôconsensus’ in India that ÔKashmir is an integral part of India’. This begs the question. Kashmiris still have the right to self-determination, even if this purported consensus exists in the rest of India. In order to veto this right, it would seem that there had to be some overwhelmingly compelling reason why the consensus of all non-Kashmiri Indians was so sacrosanct. India has yet to produce one. The strategic argument is gone, there is not much economic might in Kashmir to speak of, and the legal argument, based on the Maharaja’s accession, is questionable at best.

But we must remember that in the international political context, these types of argument are not uncommon. What makes the Indian control of Kashmir a military occupation, and unjustifiable even in comparison with other international absurdities, are India’s actions over the last half-century. In their attempt to maintain control over Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian government has been anti-democratic, arbitrary, and frequently brutal.

From the moment they gained control of Kashmir, the Indian policy was to avoid, if not punish, all talk of a plebiscite. By installing Sheikh Abdullah, Nehru believed that he could convince the world that Kashmiri public opinion really favoured union with India. In truth, Abdullah was a popular but not an elected leader. In a sense, he was little different from the Maharaja (except that he was Muslim). As mentioned above, this touting the legislative elections as a substitute for a plebiscite was disingenuous. Installing Sheikh Abdullah and continuing to back him was, itself, autocratic of India. Even when it was obvious that Sheikh Abdullah’s rule was autocratic, brutal, feudalistic, and based on fraudulent elections, India continued to support him. Nehru had no intention of giving the Kashmiri people real democracy or real power: that might have led to autonomy.

Pakistan might have been able to force India into holding a plebiscite had it dropped its opposition to holding the election under the Indian Army and with Sheikh Abdullah in power. But Jinnah was not flexible on this point. Still, India never had any intention of asking the Kashmiris’ opinions. This was obviously anti-democratic of India, and it almost certainly hurt India’s image among Kashmiris. Had India allowed democratic structures to grow in the state, it is possible that Kashmiris would have accepted New Delhi’s rule after a few years. By acting anti-democratically, India only threw fuel on the fire of Kashmiri demands.

India was also not above using underhanded, often unconstitutional, tricks in order to maintain control over Kashmir. Though they were not mentioned in the historical summary above, most of the changes of government in Jammu and Kashmir were engineered by India when it felt threatened in Kashmir. Planned party splits, such as the one which brought G. M. Shah to power in 1984, were a favoured weapon of the Indian government, though it was not averse to the simple device of dismissing the legislature and imposing direct rule, as in 1986 and 1990. Such moves, even though the common Kashmiri may not understand what happened, tend to erode faith in government, regardless of who runs it. Because it was India that always seemed to come out in control, Kashmiris assumed that the changes were planned by New Delhi.

The final issue in the Indian occupation of Kashmir is the one that shows the true leap from control to occupation. Regardless of the argument one could make about the situation between 1947 and 1989, there is no other description possible for the status of Kashmir since 1990 than occupied. The behaviour of Indian soldiers and paramilitary troops in Kashmir has been systematically brutal. Armed with the power to detain suspects for 6 months without trial, to ban subversive groups, and to hold secret trials in which there is a presumption of guilt, the Indian Army has a free hand and they use it. Operation Tiger, the Army’s code-name for its war on Kashmiri militants, tacitly sanctions deaths during interrogation… It is a catch and kill policy. In the course of the ten years of sustained uprising, the Indian government has contravened nearly every Human Rights code and has sanctioned actions from censorship, arson, and beatings, to rape, mass murder, and tortures of all kinds.

A longer headline would have added the words because of President Obama’s grovelling for Jewish campaign funding and votes.

On 19 December, in the Jewish Daily Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis wrote this:

“Top-level Jewish fundraisers from President Obama’s 2008 campaign are sticking with the president in 2012.

“Despite reports that President Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, analysis of a list of elite bundlers from his 2008 race shows no defections among the president’s top Jewish supporters in 2012.”

That’s not good news for the would-be presidents on the Republican side who are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes.

On the same day, in what the BBC’s Barbara Plett called “a highly unusual move”, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council sharply criticised Israeli settlement activities. They said in their statements that “continued settlement building threatened the chances of a future Palestinian state.” They also expressed dismay at rising settler violence. (“They” were the envoys representing the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA).

It was UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant who read the statement of the EU group.

“Israel’s continuing announcements to accelerate the construction of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, (1000 new housing units tendered for last week), send a devastating message. We believe that Israel’s security and the realisation of the Palestinians’ right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues.”

As Barbara Plett noted, “Despite the unanimity of views, the envoys did not try to draft a single Security Council statement because they knew the US would veto it.” She also noted that the Obama administration’s stance was that “anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks belongs in a US-led bilateral process, not at the UN.” (In my opinion that’s hypocrisy of the highest order).

It could be said, and I do say, that such criticism of Israel’s settlement activities is 44 years too late. So what, really, is its significance?

My answer is in three parts.

The first is that it’s a strong indication of America’s growing isolation because of the Obama administration’s unconditional support for Zionism’s monster child.

The second, related, is that it seems to confirm what I have been saying and writing for several months – that behind closed doors almost all of the governments of the world, European governments in particular, are more than fed up with Israel’s contempt for and defiance of international law.

The third is that the governments of most of the member states of the UN have come to terms with the fact that Zionism’s assertion that a Palestinian state on the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip could and would pose a threat to Israel’s existence is propaganda nonsense of the highest order. (This, of course, is only of academic interest because the two-state solution has long been dead if not yet buried).

When I am thinking about Obama’s grovelling, my memory recalls a comment made to me by Dr. Hajo Meyer, the passionate anti-Zionist Nazi holocaust survivor and author of An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism.

We had shared a platform in London and over breakfast the following morning I asked him a question. I said: “Hajo, you’re well into your eighties and you are being vilified by Zionism’s verbal hit-men for your efforts to unmask the Zionist monster. Why are you continuing with your truth-telling? Why don’t you sit back in peace and quiet and enjoy what’s left of your life?”

He replied with nine little words. “The first person I see every morning is me,” meaning “I have to live with myself.”

It’s more than reasonable to assume that Obama looks in the mirror from time to time. I wonder if he can live with himself.

Footnote: My comments on Israel’s response

Israel’s response as delivered by Karean Peretz, spokeswoman for Israel’s UN Mission, included this: “The main obstacle to peace, has been, and remains, the Palestinians’ claim to the so-called right of return and its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,”

That, too, is Zionist propaganda nonsense of the highest order.

Israel is not a Jewish state. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslims? Israel could only be a Jewish state after it had resorted to a final round of ethnic cleansing. Israel is a Zionist state.

Because Arafat kept them informed through a secret channel, Israel’s leaders have long known that in the event of a two-state solution, the PLO was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of the right of return being confined to the territory of the Palestinian state, which would mean that only about 100,000 refugees would be able to return, with the rest having to accept financial compensation for the loss, theft, of their land and rights.

As I explain in my book Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, when they decided they had no choice but to be pragmatic, Arafat and his leadership colleagues took a degree of comfort from two hopes. One was that all Palestinian refugees everywhere could and would have a Palestinian passport. The other was that if there was a two-state solution, it could evolve over one or two generations into one state for all – i.e. because in peace and partnership enough Israeli Jews would say something like, “We don’t need two states”. In the event of a one-state solution coming about by mutual consent, it was assumed on the Palestinian side at leadership level that, over time, all Palestinians who wanted to return would be able to return. So in theory the two-state solution was not necessarily the end-game on the right of return.